LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-653

V MUTHU VEERA SURILI AMMAL Vs. SOMASUNDARAM

Decided On June 22, 2018
V Muthu Veera Surili Ammal Appellant
V/S
SOMASUNDARAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the sister of the deceased Bharathapandian. She had instituted a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2016 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, for declaration that she is the sole legal heir of the deceased Bharathapandian, who died on 15.04.2016. In the plaint, it is averred that Bharathapandian had got married to Sellammal @ Muthunagammal. Sellammal, however, passed away on 04.02.1994. The couple had no issues. Besides the petitioner, another sister Meena @ Surelilingammal died on 03.07.1995. After the death of Bharathapandian on 15.04.2016, she has succeed him as his sole legal heir. She, therefore, approached the 4th respondent Tahsildar for the issuance of a legal heirship certificate. The 1st respondent vide a letter dated 06.05.2016 rejected the claim and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2016 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur seeking for the relief of declaration that she is the sole legal heir of the deceased Bharathapandian

(2.) Pending suit, the respondents 1 to 3 claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Bharathapandian filed an application in I.A.No.464 of 2016 to implead themselves as parties in O.S.No.66 of 2016. The Court below, vide an order dated 01.11.2016, has allowed the application and ordered the impleadment of the respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff is now before this Court.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.464 of 2016, the respondents 1 to 3 have averred that the revision petitioner is the only sister of the deceased Bharathapandian. It is claimed that in the Zamin system, only the male legal heirs who inherit property and accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3 should succeed to the properties of late Bharathapandian. The respondents 1 to 3 claim to have instituted a suit for partition, the details of which have not been spelt out in the affidavit. The affidavit is completely bereft of any details as to how the respondents 1 to 3 are related to the deceased Bharathapandian. Paragraph-3 of the affidavit in I.A.No.464 of 2016 is completely silent on the relationship of the respondents 1 to 3 with the deceased Bharathapandian. Furthermore, the respondents 1 to 3 have not produced any document to show their relationship with the deceased Bharathapandian. These facts appear to have been brought to the notice of the trial Court by the revision petitioner in her counter affidavit.